The cannabis conversation in the U.S. has come a long way. What used to be a taboo topic is now a mainstream movement, with nearly 90% of Americans backing some form of legalisation. But while the industry keeps growing, federal reform still feels out of reach, leaving the U.S. navigating a patchwork of state laws.
Now, with Donald Trump reelected, the cannabis industry faces an uncertain road ahead. His track record has been anything but straightforward, mixing moments of progress with plenty of question marks. As the U.S. enters the next four years, cannabis policy could see meaningful change—or stay stuck in the status quo.
This article takes a closer look at Trump’s evolving stance on cannabis and what his second term could mean for an industry at a crossroads. From his past decisions to recent shifts in public opinion, we’ll break down what’s next for cannabis in America.
Table of Contents
- A Quick Background of Cannabis in the U.S.
- What a Trump Presidency Means for the U.S. Cannabis Industry
- Trump’s Opinions on Cannabis Through the Years
- Trump’s Broader Drug Policies: What They Could Mean for Cannabis
- Conclusion
A Quick Background of Cannabis in the U.S.
For those watching from outside the U.S., the country’s relationship with cannabis can seem like a complicated puzzle. On one hand, thriving dispensaries in some states sell a variety of product types at maximum potency levels. On the other, cannabis remains illegal at the federal level, grouped with drugs like heroin under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. So how did we get here?
The shift began in 1996 when California became the first U.S. state to legalise medical marijuana, paving the way for reform that has been catching fire ever since. By 2012, Colorado and Washington State made history by legalising recreational cannabis. Today, over half of U.S. states allow medical use, while 24 have approved recreational cannabis. But here’s the catch: cannabis laws are drastically different from state to state, creating a very fragmented system. A product that’s legal in one state might land you in jail in another. And because federal law still prohibits cannabis, crossing state lines with it remains a crime.
The Politics of Cannabis Reform
It’s not just about weed—it’s about politics. Cannabis has long been a polarising issue between America’s two main political parties: Democrats and Republicans. Traditionally, Democrats have leaned toward supporting legalisation, framing it as a matter of social justice and economic opportunity. Republicans, historically more resistant, have tied cannabis to concerns about crime and drug misuse. But this dynamic is starting to change. Younger Republicans are reshaping the conversation, with more embracing cannabis as a matter of personal freedom and economic potential. Recent polls show 55% of Republicans now support some form of legalisation, marking a major cultural shift within the party.
Despite growing bipartisan support, federal progress remains slow, partly due to a conservative-controlled House and Senate. While many Republicans support policies like the SAFE Banking Act—which would help cannabis businesses access banking services—broader reforms like full legalisation face pushback from hardliners in the party.
The Bigger Picture
Cannabis reform in the U.S. also intersects with deeper societal issues. The criminal justice system, for example, has disproportionately impacted communities of colour in the United States. Black Americans are still nearly four times more likely than white Americans to be arrested for cannabis possession despite similar usage rates. These disparities have fueled calls for social equity programs aimed at creating opportunities for those most affected by prohibition, allowing them access to the cannabis industry. But even in legal states, barriers to entry—like high licensing fees in the tens of thousands of USD and lack of access to capital—make it hard for small businesses and marginalised communities to break into the industry.
So, why does cannabis matter so much in the U.S.? For one, the money. The cannabis industry is projected to hit 400 billion USD by 2030, driving tax revenue and job creation. But it’s also about fairness—Americans are increasingly questioning why people are still being arrested for cannabis in one state while it’s sold legally in another. Public opinion reflects this shift: 88% of Americans support legalisation, making cannabis reform a rare unifier in an extremely divided political landscape.
In the U.S., cannabis policy is a balancing act between federal inaction, state innovation, and the cultural tug-of-war between tradition and progress. Whether the next few years under Trump will bring meaningful change or more of the status quo remains to be seen.
What a Trump Presidency Means for the U.S. Cannabis Industry
With Donald Trump reelected, the future of cannabis in the U.S. remains a question mark. Over the years, Trump’s stance on cannabis has shifted from cautious support to more practical comments in more recent months. However, as the U.S. continues navigating a patchwork of state laws and increasing public demand for reform, his administration could play a pivotal role in shaping the industry’s trajectory during his next term as president. Let’s take a look.
Trump Considers Federal Rescheduling
One thing that could happen is federal decriminalisation. Trump has hinted at rescheduling cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act. Currently classified as a Schedule I drug—alongside hard drugs with no medicinal value like heroin and LSD—cannabis is considered to have no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Moving it to Schedule III would acknowledge its medical value and open the door for further research.
Schedule III drugs include things like Ketamine and Tylenol 3 with Codeine. If cannabis were rescheduled to Schedule III, it would legitimise its medical use at the federal level, aligning it with drugs that are still considered addictive but often recommended for medical use. Doctors could prescribe cannabis rather than recommend it, which may make it possible for insurance coverage and broader access, including for veterans under federal care.
Rescheduling would also ease research restrictions, making it possible for the U.S. to contribute more clinical studies. It could also give cannabis businesses tax benefits by eliminating the burdens of Section 280E. Under federal law, Section 280E of the tax code prevents Schedule I and II drug businesses from deducting standard expenses like rent and payroll, creating a major disadvantage for legal cannabis businesses. Rescheduling would allow cannabis companies to deduct these costs, which could ultimately make the industry larger and more profitable.
That said, rescheduling is not the same as full legalisation. While it would remove some barriers, it wouldn’t address the state’s ability to do business across state lines, banking access, or the racial disparities tied to past cannabis law enforcement. Critics argue that without more comprehensive reforms, rescheduling could benefit large corporations while leaving smaller businesses and communities behind. It would help in some ways and stimulate the economy, but without full legalisation, there would still be a long road ahead.
Trump Supports Banking Reform
Another key issue under Trump’s administration is banking reform. Federal restrictions currently prevent cannabis businesses from accessing traditional banking services, forcing many to operate in cash—which is a huge security risk and a major pain point for business owners operating in the space.
The SAFE Banking Act (Secure and Fair Enforcement Banking Act) is legislation designed to allow banks and other financial institutions (like credit card companies) to work with state-legal cannabis businesses without fear of federal penalties. It aims to improve safety and access by reducing the reliance on cash-only operations, which pose security risks and hinder industry growth. It has bipartisan support, likely because cash-only businesses come with risks, including heightened vulnerability to theft, security costs, and challenges with transparent financial reporting and taxation.
Trump has expressed support for “smart regulations” around cannabis, and while he hasn’t explicitly endorsed the SAFE Banking Act, his emphasis on economic incentives suggests he may align with reforms that reduce financial barriers for businesses. If passed, the SAFE Banking Act could provide much-needed stability to the industry, encouraging growth and improving safety for businesses and consumers alike.
Trump’s Mixed Cabinet Could Be Problematic
Trump’s cabinet choices will also influence the cannabis industry’s future. His pick for Attorney General, Congressman Matt Gaetz, is a vocal supporter of cannabis reform and has consistently pushed for federal legalisation.
However, Gaetz’s nomination is not without controversy. Allegations of past misconduct, including the sex trafficking of a 17-year-old girl, have sparked bipartisan outrage and calls for transparency, so Gaetz withdrew, and Trump instead nominated Pam Bondi, a former Florida Attorney General. Bondi has historically opposed cannabis legalisation but supported regulated CBD use and the approval of Epidiolex. Her focus on issues like the opioid crisis may deprioritise cannabis reform at the Department of Justice (DOJ), even as rescheduling discussions move forward.
The same thing happened to his pro-cannabis cabinet pick for the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). Hillsborough County Sheriff Chad Chronister, another appointee, has shown support for limited decriminalisation but has withdrawn thanks to pushback from conservatives. GOP figures like John Thune—an opponent of cannabis reform— are acting as roadblocks on this issue despite growing support in the party from younger Republicans. Before Trump was elected, his cabinet picks were pretty pro-cannabis, but with pushback post-election and a slurry of allegations surfacing, cannabis seems to be at the bottom of the list of priorities for those closest to the president.
So, What Could Happen Next?
At the heart of the cannabis conversation lies Trump’s pragmatic approach. While he hasn’t fully endorsed sweeping reforms, his support for rescheduling, banking reform, and state rights indicates an understanding of the political and economic potential of cannabis. Trump’s acknowledgement that “needless arrests” should end resonates with a public increasingly in favour of legalisation.
However, Trump’s leadership style relies heavily on delegation. His cabinet’s mixed positions on cannabis mean that while Trump may set the tone, the direction of cannabis policy will depend largely on the recommendations and advice brought to his desk. Whether his administration delivers meaningful change or maintains the status quo will depend on how effectively these appointees navigate bipartisan challenges and public expectations.
If Trump’s recent statements are any indication, the U.S. cannabis industry could see incremental progress during his second term. Rescheduling could expand medical access and ease tax burdens for businesses, while the SAFE Banking Act may stabilise the industry’s financial side. Yet broader issues—such as full legalisation, racial equity, and interstate commerce—may remain unresolved, particularly with opposition from key figures in Trump’s administration and the Republican Party.
Ultimately, Trump’s presidency offers a mix of opportunity and unpredictability for the cannabis industry. While he has expressed support for reforms, the next four years will likely highlight the tension between economic potential and social progress in the evolving American cannabis story.
Trump’s Opinions on Cannabis Through the Years
Donald Trump’s views on cannabis have always been a bit of a moving target—sometimes progressive, sometimes cautious, but usually, his focus is leaving things up to the states to decide. His stance has evolved quite a bit over the years, mirroring broader cultural and political shifts in the U.S. Here’s a closer look at his changing relationship with cannabis policy.
Early Views (2015–2016)
Before launching his political career, Trump rarely spoke publicly about cannabis. But by 2015, as he prepared for his first presidential campaign, his support for medical marijuana began to surface. In an interview with Bill O’Reilly, Trump backed medical cannabis, noting its value for people with serious illnesses. He repeated this position at rallies, framing medical cannabis as a compassionate solution.
When it came to recreational use, however, Trump was less enthusiastic. His approach leaned on states’ rights, saying individual states should make their own decisions. This stance appealed to conservative voters who supported limited federal intervention but weren’t yet sold on broader legalisation.
While this position kept Trump relatively neutral, it stood out within the Republican Party, where many still opposed any type of cannabis reform. It also reflected a growing awareness of public opinion, which was beginning to shift in favour of legalisation.
First Term in Office (2016–2020)
Once in office, Trump’s cannabis record became more complicated. On one hand, his administration signed the 2018 Farm Bill, a major piece of legislation that legalised industrial hemp. The move has generated roughly a 2 billion USD cannabis-adjacent industry and boosted the CBD market. It was a major step forward for many cannabis-adjacent sectors, creating jobs and encouraging innovation in agriculture and wellness products.
On the other hand, his decision to appoint Jeff Sessions as Attorney General was seen as a step backwards. Sessions, a staunch opponent of legalisation, rescinded the Cole Memorandum—an Obama-era guideline that protected state-legal cannabis businesses from federal interference. More or less, it had business owners operating legally in various states fearing that the feds would raid their businesses and shut them down at any moment. It created uncertainty for businesses operating legally under state laws and signalled a potential rollback of all the cannabis progress happening in the states since the late 1990s.
Despite Sessions’ hardline stance, Trump occasionally hinted at support for broader reform. In 2018, he said he’d “probably” back the STATES Act, a bipartisan bill designed to protect state cannabis laws from federal interference. However, the bill gained little traction, leaving advocates questioning how committed Trump really was to change.
One of the brighter spots of Trump’s first term was his support for criminal justice reform. In 2019, he signed the First Step Act, which reduced sentences for non-violent offenders and provided early release opportunities. While not cannabis-specific, the law addressed some consequences of the war on drugs, offering a glimpse of progress.
Post-Presidency and Recent Comments (2020–Present)
Since leaving office, Trump’s tone on cannabis has softened. In 2024, he endorsed Florida’s recreational cannabis ballot initiative, calling for an end to “needless arrests” for small amounts of marijuana. He also expressed support for rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III, aligning with growing public support for reform.
Trump’s recent comments have positioned him as more of an observer of the industry rather than a champion of legalisation. He’s acknowledged the economic potential of cannabis, highlighting the importance of “smart regulations” and access to safe, tested products. While his rhetoric remains cautious, it reflects an awareness of changing public attitudes, particularly within the Republican Party.
A Mixed Record, with Room for Change
Trump’s relationship with cannabis is emblematic of his broader political approach: reactive, sensible, and often tied to public sentiment. While his first term brought both progress and setbacks, his more recent statements suggest a willingness to adapt to shifting cultural and economic realities. Whether this translates to meaningful reform in his second term remains to be seen, but Trump’s evolving stance ensures he will remain a key figure in the U.S. cannabis conversation.
Trump’s Broader Drug Policies: What They Could Mean for Cannabis
Cannabis reform is just one piece of the U.S.’s broader drug policy puzzle, and Trump’s track record provides clues about how his administration might approach it. Historically, Trump has favoured enforcement-driven strategies, focusing on law and order over public health. Though politically popular in some circles, this tough-on-crime approach ties into a much larger system: America’s criminal justice system, which operates much like a business.
The U.S. has one of the largest prison systems in the world, generating billions annually through fines, fees, and privatised facilities. The so-called “industrial prison complex” brings in an estimated 4 billion USD every year in profits and disproportionately affects Black and Brown communities, who are nearly four times more likely to be arrested for cannabis-related offences despite similar usage rates as white Americans. Many people from these communities are still serving prison sentences for marijuana, even as cannabis becomes a multi-billion USD legal industry. This disparity has created significant barriers to entry for these same communities in the legal cannabis market, further widening the gap between those profiting and those left behind.
Harm reduction strategies—such as syringe exchanges, access to naloxone, and community-based addiction services—remain minimal in the U.S., reflecting a broader lack of investment in public health and mental health support. Instead, drug policy often centres on enforcement, with federal resources directed toward the border and law enforcement. While Trump’s administration has focused on fentanyl trafficking and drug cartels in China and Mexico, it’s worth noting that Mexican cartels are now smuggling cannabis out of the U.S. and back to Mexico due to higher product quality in legal U.S. markets. Within the U.S., illegal cannabis markets persist as people transport products legally grown in one state to states where cannabis remains prohibited, a phenomenon legalisation could address by reducing black market demand.
The American Landscape
Inflation and America’s mental health crisis also play a significant role in drug use and related crime. Rising costs of living and limited access to affordable care create conditions that drive substance abuse, making enforcement-based solutions ineffective in addressing root causes. While cannabis reform could reduce non-violent arrests and provide economic opportunities, it’s unlikely to solve these systemic challenges without a more holistic approach.
Agency dynamics under Trump could even further exacerbate these tensions. Plans to reorganise the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and shift responsibilities to enforcement-focused agencies like the DEA suggest a continued emphasis on punitive measures over public health solutions. Trump’s appointees, such as Pam Bondi and Marty Makary, are sceptical of cannabis reform, which may limit federal support for equity programs or harm reduction initiatives.
While Trump has expressed support for rescheduling cannabis and easing financial barriers for businesses, his broader drug policies reflect a preference for enforcement over reform. Incremental progress may come during his second term, but the structural inequalities tied to America’s drug policy—and their impact on cannabis—are unlikely to see significant change.
Conclusion
Donald Trump’s reelection places cannabis reform at a pivotal moment. While his support for rescheduling and easing financial barriers signals potential progress, his broader emphasis on enforcement and a divided cabinet suggest meaningful change may remain elusive.
Cannabis reform in the U.S. reflects larger systemic challenges—from a criminal justice system that profits from enforcement to minimal harm reduction strategies and inequities that disproportionately affect marginalised communities. Incremental steps like rescheduling or banking reform could help, but full legalisation and broader social equity still feel far off.
With public support for cannabis reform at an all-time high, the question isn’t whether change will happen but how—and how quickly. Trump’s next four years could shape the industry’s future, but whether he’ll lead the charge or let the opportunity slip remains to be seen.
Article Comments